If the fine print of an effort to raise $3,000 for a youth charity can result in a mayor being turfed, should there not be similar concern over $300 million raised in exchange for zoning compromises?

Is $1-million worth of space in a new building dedicated for Artscape a community benefit?

Is 1% of the construction costs for “public art” — something like the $500,000 Toy Soldiers sculptures at Bathurst St. and Lake Shore Blvd. W. — for the public’s benefit or for the condo and artists’ benefit?

There is always debate and with Section 37 dole-outs there are always more questions than answers.

For most it seems to be a yawner — too complicated and tedious.

However, if you notice those statues or strange pieces of art out in front of tall condo buildings, that’s your Section 37 money at work.

It’s built in as a legal compromise to offset the impact that extra floors and density will have on the community.

Does a modern art sculpture do that?

Some wards negotiated $50 million so far and city-wide more than $300 million.

“There is a whole lot of money going through (Section 37) and it needs to be reviewed,” Budget Chief Mike Del Grande said Monday. “I have said to the planning department there should be an audit.”

Few are talking about it though. Few wonder what the public get for these Section 37 trade-offs.

In Ward 20, at 299 Adelaide St. W. and 21-31 Widmer St., public documents show that for extra density, $100,000 was negotiated from a developer and earmarked for “development of John St. Streetscape Project.”

But in the next sentence it described “conveyance of min. 420 m2 community/performance space to Artscape, having min. value of $1M.”

So, in the interest of the community, Artscape gets a free studio?

Anybody else in business getting that?

It also states “public art at 1% gcc (gross construction costs) with 50% applied to building podium.”

That could be as much as another $1 million.

This is how we get these celebrated walkways of lights, art murals or sculptures that may offer more value to the building than it actually does to community benefit.

But who monitors this? Who judges it on the taxpayers’ behalf?

This close to clandestine process is what had Mayor Rob Ford hopping mad at last week’s council meeting, where he and Ward 20 Councillor Adam Vaughan squared off — with words like “shakedown” being used.

Ford himself has utilized Section 37 to have $75,000 legally funnelled to renovate the change rooms of his football team at Don Bosco. But he took exception to the $1-million agreement at 219 Queen St. W., which will “be modified to now accommodate four floors of retail and office uses.”

A City Hall document says “$100,000 for capital improvements to affordable housing in Ward 20” and “$900,000 for streetscape improvements in the area to be paid prior to the first building permit issuing for the site.”

We don’t know the extra profit the developer will accrue thanks to the citizens’ compensation of this $1 million. We also don’t know who benefits from the $100,000 in affordable housing or how the $900,000 is spent and what the next shiny bobble that will be built in place of the money going to perhaps transit or to pay down debt.

Maybe once they are done with the $3,150 from the mayor’s mess, lawyer Clayton Ruby and complainant Paul Magder could delve into it?

So far there has been no one who has asked why millions seem to be going into fun visual stuff and not into addressing the very concerns of what extra density can do to a neighbourhood.

If there is a byelection, here’s some questions:

Why are some agreements for seven figures and others for 10 times less?

Are conflicts, relations or friendships declared?

Is there a complete money trail recorded from creation to completion?

Does the city take control of the money or do developers, or an agency like Artscape, control it while deciding what community benefit looks like?

Who buys the art or hires the artist?

Who maintains it and gets title to it?

If a piece of art is one day priceless, does the city or developer own it?

Is this spelled out in agreements?

Is there lobbying, tendering, competition, quality control or scrutiny in the process?

“I am not sure about this negotiation thing where some councillors use the funds as a war chest,” said Del Grande. “We need clarity of the rules.”

When there is $300 million in the game, it seems as important as the legitimate concerns over $3,000.

Poll

Do you think there should be an immediate audit of Toronto’s Section 37 provision?

Condo density deals need to be reviewed

If the fine print of an effort to raise $3,000 for a youth charity can result in a mayor being turfed, should there not be similar concern over $300 million raised in exchange for zoning compromises?

Is $1 million worth of space in a new building dedicated for Artscape a community benefit?

Is 1% of the construction costs for “public art” — something like the $500,000 Toy Soldiers sculptures at Bathurst St. and Lake Shore Blvd. W. — for the public’s benefit or for the condo and artists’ benefit?

There is always debate and with Section 37 dole-outs there are always more questions than answers.

About the author

Other Stories

Despite efforts by the Liberal government to distance itself from suggestions that disgraced bureaucrat Benjamin Levin had a hand in crafting the sex-ed curriculum, there’s ample evidence he put his fingerprint on what Ontario children learn in the classroom.